How do you justify the examination of the birth certificate at an atomic level, when there are people working for the state of Hawaii, who have actually seen the real thing, and might, well, say something like "Hey, that's a fake"? How do you explain the 1961 birth announcements? How do you explain the certification by the Governor of Hawaii?

Are you going to answer any questions, or are you once again going to talk about the line in the red circle?

Are you indicating that you also see this as not one page, but instead at least two pieces of paper?

No, I clicked the wrong QUOTE button, and have corrected my post to refer to the proper comment.

The fact that this is still going on, that it ever went on in the first place is just ugly... propagated by the same sort of racist element that attended McCain/Palin rallies wearing monkey masks, showing up at Obama rallies strapping weapons, etcetera. It's an exceedingly poor reflection on our nation.

The fact is a bunch of entitled WASPs... the kinder-gentler klan types are pretty pi$$ed we have a negro for president. That's the truth. I'm not saying you're necessarily one of those, but you and those like you abet their existence with your paranoid, unfounded insinuations.

Now the burden is on you to prove my proof false. See attached images.

No, you have proof of scanning artifacts, not proof that the ORIGINAL CONTENT is any different than the CONTENT on the PDF.

You don't even understand the difference.

What CONTENT do you have proof is different than the original? The date? The location?

Here is how this would play out in court.

JUDGE: Mr. Obama, what proof do you have of your location of birth?

OBAMA: Here you go Judge, here are all the lawful documents:
1) Computer generated Certificate of Live Birth with raised seal.
2) Testimony of the Republican Gov. that it is true and valid.
3) Photocopy of the paper Certificate of Live Birth with state stamp
4) Letter from State of Hawaii validating it is a true copy.

JUDGE: These are all legally admissible and binding documents. You've met your burden 4 times over what any court would require. What do you have Mr. Birthtard?

DUMB-F**K BIRTHTARD: If you look here at this unofficial PDF scan, you can see that there are artifacts from the scanning process....

JUDGE: Unofficial PDF scan? WTF are you talking about? That isn't admissible. Don't you understand the difference between an original document and a scan that was produced to be quickly put on the internet in the middle of a news cycle? Get the F*** out before I put you in jail.

DUMB-F**K BIRTHTARD: But I got this from some random person on the internet, isn't that the same as evidence that came directly from the State of Hawaii??

No, I clicked the wrong QUOTE button, and have corrected my post to refer to the proper comment.

The fact that this is still going on, that it ever went on in the first place is just ugly... propagated by the same sort of racist element that attended McCain/Palin rallies wearing monkey masks, showing up at Obama rallies strapping weapons, etcetera. It's an exceedingly poor reflection on our nation.

The fact is a bunch of entitled WASPs... the kinder-gentler klan types are pretty pi$$ed we have a negro for president. That's the truth. I'm not saying you're necessarily one of those, but you and those like you abet their existence with your paranoid, unfounded insinuations.

No, I clicked the wrong QUOTE button, and have corrected my post to refer to the proper comment.

The fact that this is still going on, that it ever went on in the first place is just ugly... propagated by the same sort of racist element that attended McCain/Palin rallies wearing monkey masks, showing up at Obama rallies strapping weapons, etcetera. It's an exceedingly poor reflection on our nation.

The fact is a bunch of entitled WASPs... the kinder-gentler klan types are pretty pi$$ed we have a negro for president. That's the truth. I'm not saying you're necessarily one of those, but you and those like you abet their existence with your paranoid, unfounded insinuations.

You are correct that I am not racist. I can't help it if people of different motivations argue about similar issues.

It is ugly that it has gone on this long. The entire matter of the certificate and location of birth likely could have been settled three years ago except Obama fought it like a junkyard dog in the courts. He built the suspicions.

The best settlement to any argument would be for a full forensic examination of the document and pertinent details.

ummm.. no. That's NOT the best way.

The best way is to go directly to the authoritative source of the document, and confirm that the CONTENTS of the digital PDF file match the CONTENTS of the original, regardless of the FORMAT of the PDF file.

That has already been done. The State of Hawaii has already validated the CONTENTS as accurate, regardless of format. They have done so multiple times, from both Republican and Democratic leadership. Both in writing and verbally. Both from the political side of the gov't, and from the professional side.

You have been provided with proof of all of this validation, yet choose to ignore it and choose a forensic examination that at the end WILL NEVER PROVE NOR DISPROVE THAT THE CONTENT IS NOT ACCURATE!!!!

Your methodology is faulty, and cannot ever lead to a logical conclusion on the accuracy of the CONTENTS of Obama's birth certificate.

I ABSOtively POSOlutely did. This entire argument is founded in racism. Period.

About this, I disagree entirely. In the context of the sequence of events over years, it needs full and detailed analysis to be settled. There may be some who are motivated (on both sides) by racism. Have you really seen evidence that those are in any significant numbers?

It is ugly that it has gone on this long. The entire matter of the certificate and location of birth likely could have been settled three years ago except Obama fought it like a junkyard dog in the courts. He built the suspicions.

Way to take personal responsibility for your own role. Just like now, you know Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, yet you intentionally stoke the fires in a completely irresponsible manor.

Stop blaming Obama for YOUR failure to accept 100% valid documents, over and over and over again.

This has gone on way too long. And it is the fault of people like you that it is continuing here today. Or are you not responsible for what your own fingers do?

The best way is to go directly to the authoritative source of the document, and confirm that the CONTENTS of the digital PDF file match the CONTENTS of the original, regardless of the FORMAT of the PDF file.

That has already been done. The State of Hawaii has already validated the CONTENTS as accurate, regardless of format. They have done so multiple times, from both Republican and Democratic leadership. Both in writing and verbally. Both from the political side of the gov't, and from the professional side.

You have been provided with proof of all of this validation, yet choose to ignore it and choose a forensic examination that at the end WILL NEVER PROVE NOR DISPROVE THAT THE CONTENT IS NOT ACCURATE!!!!

Your methodology is faulty, and cannot ever lead to a logical conclusion on the accuracy of the CONTENTS of Obama's birth certificate.

This may all be true. If your intent is to settle the matter, then the forensic analysis would help a lot.

That you are satisfied you know the answer to life, the universe, and everything and the answer is "42"

More hysterical, condescending hyperbole; nice move. And you wonder why people get upset with you

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottwww

"as a child, Obama would not lose US citizenship, regardless of the series of events that occurred"
This is your conclusion. You have offered no proof it is a true statement. I don't know it to be true or false.

This is not a conclusion, and it is not my conclusion. Look up the word "conclusion" sometime. Rather, this is a statement of US law, as referenced by several knowledgeable people, some of them in this forum. You've seen this statement many times, and it is consistent with the resolution of Obama's actual elegibility. As I said, it would be incumbent upon you to prove this statement false, as you are the one arguing against the reasonable "conclusion" that this child status law explains Obama's eligibility. And until you provide an update to this particular legal statement, I have nothing to discuss with you.

And scottwww, I also find it quite telling that you've quoted Jerome Corsi of all people in your posts. Jerome Corsi... swift boater extraordinaire, purveyor of lies masquerading as questions.

As I said earlier, engaging with any one of you about this issue is meaningless. You'll suck up substantiated facts like a black hole, impervious to the fact they ever existed in the first place. You'll continue to do it no matter what proof exists... that you'll continue to question.

About this, I disagree entirely. In the context of the sequence of events over years, it needs full and detailed analysis to be settled. There may be some who are motivated (on both sides) by racism. Have you really seen evidence that those are in any significant numbers?

41% of Republicans responded recently to a poll by saying Obama is a Muslim. I consider that a very strong sign of prejudicial thinking towards Obama.

Way to take personal responsibility for your own role. Just like now, you know Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, yet you intentionally stoke the fires in a completely irresponsible manor.

Stop blaming Obama for YOUR failure to accept 100% valid documents, over and over and over again.

This has gone on way too long. And it is the fault of people like you that it is continuing here today. Or are you not responsible for what your own fingers do?

First, I don't "know" Obama was born in Hawaii. I would agree that the preponderance of evidence is that he was born there. However, there are many problems surrounding the certificate. They would not likely be discussed at all today had the matter been settled up front three years ago when Obama dug in his heels to deny all requests for the long form certificate. He brought this on, and probably purposefully. Maybe it still plays to his advantage. Yet it has the potential to work against him. Let's see if it will. If he wanted to settle the matter, it could probably be done with forensic analysis of the certificate and associated papers, procedures, etc.

The way Obama has handled it leads to the suspicion that he is hiding something worth millions to him in legal fees. Let's just see him allow full discovery.

More hysterical, condescending hyperbole; nice move. And you wonder why people get upset with you
This is not a conclusion, and it is not my conclusion. Look up the word "conclusion" sometime. Rather, this is a statement of US law, as referenced by several knowledgeable people, some of them in this forum. You've seen this statement many times, and it is consistent with the resolution of Obama's actual elegibility. As I said, it would be incumbent upon you to prove this statement false, as you are the one arguing against the reasonable "conclusion" that this child status law explains Obama's eligibility. And until you provide an update to this particular legal statement, I have nothing to discuss with you.

If there is case law that what you say is true, what are the references?

And scottwww, I also find it quite telling that you've quoted Jerome Corsi of all people in your posts. Jerome Corsi... swift boater extraordinaire, purveyor of lies masquerading as questions.

As I said earlier, engaging with any one of you about this issue is meaningless. You'll suck up substantiated facts like a black hole, impervious to the fact they ever existed in the first place. You'll continue to do it no matter what proof exists... that you'll continue to question.

What's wrong with Jerome Corsi? (that should probably be discussed in it's own topic). To my knowledge I have not quoted Jerome Corsi. I haven't cracked open the book yet.

The entire matter of the certificate and location of birth likely could have been settled three years ago except Obama fought it like a junkyard dog in the courts. He built the suspicions.

"like a junkyard dog" - yeah, that's not too racist.

The entire matter was settled 3 years ago, when the state of Hawaii certified his birth certificate. That's been good enough for every other presidential candidate, democrat and republican alike. Even Mike Dukakis, the "son of Greek immigrants", was not questioned after his citizenship was certified, but like all the others, he was a white european, too. Why is Obama's situation different? Hmmm, let me see......